Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Div

      Pie and Bovril Nostalgia Mobile Phone Cases!   12/09/18

      We are delighted to have partnered up with Nostalgia Cases to offer a huge range of fantastic Scottish Football phone cases to our visitors. These high quality cases are available in a range of retro and up to date designs and there variations available for all Premiership, Championship and League 1 clubs as well as four of the League 2 teams. Within each club there are a range of choices. You'll find it difficult to choose! This is an Edinburgh based start-up, and they also provide a custom design service so if there is a kit you don't see that you'd love for your phone you can get in touch with them and they'll add it to their range. Naturally there is a HUGE support for all the major phone manufacturers and models and what's more delivery in the UK is completely FREE. What's even better is that Pie and Bovril users can get 10% off their order using the coupon code PIEANDBOV Take a look and browse the full range for your favourite club by clicking through to the website below. https://bit.ly/2M5laZs
Sign in to follow this  
Fide

"One of the most powerful devolved Governments in the world"

Recommended Posts

Aye, this. It's a boring constitutional law point, but Parliament cannot bind itself. Therefore, anything which prevents Parliament from doing anything is by definition unconstitutional.

Or, if you prefer, if that amendment was passed, it would mean the square root of f**k all. Because Westminster could still abolish the Scottish Parliament if it wanted to.

If you want to look at gesture politics, then I start with the Conservative policies of banning tax rises.

The parliament introduces restrictions all the time and doing so does not make it unconstitutional. To make my point, are you suggesting that moving the setting of MPs pay to an independent body outwith Parliament is unconstitutional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they didn't. They voted down an SNP amendment which would have changed the words of sub-clause 1(1) from:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

To:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it."

This does not make the Scottish Parliament any more permanent within the terms of reference of the Smith Commission than the original wording. For one very simple reason.

An Act of the UK Parliament can repeal subsection (1B) without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Because it is sovereign.

Certainly it is a stronger political protection, and defying the Sewel Convention would carry a stronger political cost, but it would not have made the Scottish Parliament any more permanent than the Bill would already. Indeed, I would argue neither the Bill nor the Amendment make the Parliament any more permanent than the Scotland Act itself!

The SNP amendment was for Westminster to abolish the Scottish parliament you would need the agreement of the Scottish parliament plus a referendum to do so.

If the SNP amendment was included in the Scotland Bill it would make it not only more difficult to abolish the Scottish parliament but even more undemocratic to do so without the consultation of the Scottish people and the Scottish parliament itself!

That's what was voted down!

Edited by Colkitto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night in Westminster in case you missed all the massive news coverage today by our MSM.

Holyrood not permanent.

WM can legislate on devolved matters.

WM can repeal Scottish Human Rights.

No FFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SNP amendment was for Westminster to abolish the Scottish parliament you would need the agreement of the Scottish parliament plus a referendum to do so.

If the SNP amendment was included in the Scotland Bill it would make it not only more difficult to abolish the Scottish parliament but even more undemocratic to do so without the consultation of the Scottish people and the Scottish parliament itself!

That's what was voted down!

It wouldn't make it more difficult. No matter what the clause contained, a future Westminster government would always be able to dissolve the Scottish Parliament by repealing the Scotland Act 1998, Scotland Act 2012 and (soon-to-be) Scotland Act 2015.

Undemocratic? Perhaps, but I think any government prepared to repeal the Scotland Acts will have gone past caring about the need for a referendum.

Last night in Westminster in case you missed all the massive news coverage today by our MSM.

Holyrood not permanent.

You mean apart from the amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 that states:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdoms constitution."

WM can legislate on devolved matters.

Westminster has always been able to legislate on devolved matters, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.

WM can repeal Scottish Human Rights.

Where in the Scotland Bill does such a provision exist?

No FFA.

Which wasn't part of "the vow", which is what so many are referring back to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't make it more difficult. No matter what the clause contained, a future Westminster government would always be able to dissolve the Scottish Parliament by repealing the Scotland Act 1998, Scotland Act 2012 and (soon-to-be) Scotland Act 2015.

Undemocratic? Perhaps, but I think any government prepared to repeal the Scotland Acts will have gone past caring about the need for a referendum.

You mean apart from the amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 that states:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdoms constitution."

Westminster has always been able to legislate on devolved matters, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.

Where in the Scotland Bill does such a provision exist?

Which wasn't part of "the vow", which is what so many are referring back to.

If you have a Law stating you require a referendum & the Scottish parliament agreement before you can abolish then you try and dissolve without that agreement I would say that would be more difficult than just having a Law that doesn't require that agreement.

There is no statutory Sewell convention meaning Westminster can legislate on devolved matters.

Under devolution legislation, acts of the Scottish parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with the European convention and the 1998 Human Rights Act.

FFA not part of the vow? I thought we were getting home rule or near federalism? Does that not equate to FFA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a Law stating you require a referendum & the Scottish parliament agreement before you can abolish then you try and dissolve without that agreement I would say that would be more difficult than just having a Law that doesn't require that agreement.

You'd be wrong to say that.

As I said, the Scottish Parliament can be dissolved at a stroke by repealing the necessary Acts of Parliament, regardless of the provisions of those acts.

Now it might be more difficult politically, but as I also said any government prepared to repeal the Scotland Acts would be far beyond caring.

There is no statutory Sewell convention meaning Westminster can legislate on devolved matters.

Which is what the following in the Scotland Bill aims to achieve:

“( 8 ) But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution legislation, acts of the Scottish parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with the European convention and the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Right, and? Why does that mean "WM can repeal Scottish Human Rights" (other than by removing the powers of the Scottish Parliament - if that happened, there would be slightly more serious things to worry about)?

FFA not part of the vow? I thought we were getting home rule or near federalism? Does that not equate to FFA?

No.

Edited by The Master

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people that care about the vow are folk who voted yes in the referendum. Opinion polls show that it had a negligable impact on how people voted.

Opinion polls show no such things. Congratulations on typing out a post. It must be difficult when you're short of a spine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Master is entirely correct to state that there is no constitutional route to a permanent Scottish parliament within the UK, due to the paramount sovereignty of the Westminster parliament. A fact that Gordon Brown, as a former prime minister and someone involved with the original devolution settlement would know fine well.

Which begs the question why he was running around in the last week or two of the referendum spouting shite about making it a permanent fixture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a Law stating you require a referendum & the Scottish parliament agreement before you can abolish then you try and dissolve without that agreement I would say that would be more difficult than just having a Law that doesn't require that agreement.

There is no statutory Sewell convention meaning Westminster can legislate on devolved matters.

Under devolution legislation, acts of the Scottish parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with the European convention and the 1998 Human Rights Act.

FFA not part of the vow? I thought we were getting home rule or near federalism? Does that not equate to FFA?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SNP's EU legal adviser found

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To your second point: You said that politicians lie and that it is part of the game to do so. Is that the case only when it suits?

As a matter of balance, all week Tommy Shepherds comments on FFA have been continually quoted out of context by politicians from the Labour Party and the Tories. To the extent that he wrote a column to address it.

I guess that, given the rules of this apparent "game" though, we have to accept it as par for the course?

I didn't say that they weren't allowed to lie. I just think it's legitimate for it to be pointed out how brazen they are with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion polls show no such things. Congratulations on typing out a post. It must be difficult when you're short of a spine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/11497348/The-vow-of-more-devolution-made-little-difference-to-outcome-of-independence-referendum.html

http://www.thenational.scot/news/indy-result-not-about-the-vow.1502

Edited by kevthedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know if the SNP have a Twitter Rota Convenor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f**k sake he remembered his password.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion polls show no such things. Congratulations on typing out a post. It must be difficult when you're short of a spine.

on mobile so can't link but type the vow Scotsman polls into google and you'll find you are talking pish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on mobile so can't link but type the vow Scotsman polls into google and you'll find you are talking pish.

:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol::lol:

knew you would say that to deflect, there's a link from mcpravda posted above referring to the same poll. Edited by sparky88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knew you would say that to deflect, there's a link from mcpravda posted above referring to the same poll.

I apologise, but I've long since stopped looking to the print press for a source of information. They're a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise, but I've long since stopped looking to the print press for a source of information. They're a disgrace.

Including "The National"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What about The National" has probably overtaken "but we elected David Coburn" as the number one popular bit of Unionist whataboutery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knew you would say that to deflect, there's a link from mcpravda posted above referring to the same poll.

And what do the polls say about Devo Max ? I'm sure that most Scots are in favour. The UK government's determination to continually bang on about FFA to deflect away from the fact that they won't give us devo max EVER is fooling absolutely no one, apart from Scottish unionists of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×